THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
C.M.A. No. 2733 of 2004
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam and learned counsel for the 1st respondent - applicant Sri K. Mahender Reddy.
The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order dated 08.12.2003 in W.C.No. 211 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad under which a sum of Rs.1,10,021/- was awarded to the 1st respondent. The applicant- 1st respondent was engaged on the vehicle bearing Registration No. APJ 822 which met with an accident on 07.04.2002 resulting in fracture to right leg, both bones of right leg and right leg ankle apart from head injury. Before the Competent Authority, he claimed that he was drawing a sum of Rs.4,000/- and is 18-year- old. FIR was lodged before the police on 07.04.2002. The claimant was initially treated at Government Hospital, Nizamabad and he claimed to have incurred a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Sri T. Narsing Rao, Orthopaedic Consultant, who was examined as P.W.2, had certified that the applicant suffered permanent partial disability at 35% and functional disability to the extent of 40% and loss of earning capacity as 45%.
The competent Authority, after going through the evidence, found that there was employer-employee relationship and there was no reason to reject the medical evidence as the factum of accident is not in dispute. Considering the same and taking into 2 account the evidence of P.W.2 to the extent of percentage of permanent disability and the minimum wages payable under G.O.Ms.No. 11 at Rs.1800/-, applying the formula, had awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,021/-.
Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant - insurance Company though contends that the policy is an act policy and it does not cover labourers, in terms of Rule 252 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, apart from the driver, six persons would be covered and in that view of the matter there being no dispute of occurrence of accident and with regard to insurance policy, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Competent Authority.
There being no merit in the Appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 30th April 2021 ksld 3